What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[Red]

This week...

Hutton
Gavaskar
Bradman
Hammond
Miller
Sobers
Gilchrist
Wasim
Warne
Lillee
Murali

 

[Gowza]

An All rounders XI

1 Barlow
2 Sobers
3 Kallis
4 Procter
5 Miller
6 Botham
7 Gilchrist
8 Cairns
9 Faulkner
10 Imran
11 Hadlee

12th Man: Shaun Pollock

 

[kyear2]

This week...

Hutton
Gavaskar
Bradman
Hammond
Miller
Sobers
Gilchrist
Wasim
Warne
Lillee
Murali

So who are the cornerstones must have on your team, that no matter the changes they will always be included. Your must haves, the premier players?

 

[Red]

So who are the cornerstones must have on your team, that no matter the changes they will always be included. Your must haves, the premier players?

Hutton, Bradman, Sobers are my locks.

Lillee nearly always, but that's personal preference. And probably Warne most of the time.

 

[Prince EWS]

So who are the cornerstones must have on your team, that no matter the changes they will always be included. Your must haves, the premier players?

For me - Bradman, Sobers, Gilchrist and Hobbs are not up for negotiation. The rest of the answer changes a bit for me depending on exactly what the question is. Imran was IMO the best Test cricketer of all time but I don't think he was one the best four bowlers of all time so his place would somewhat come down to balance when it came to picking a side to play a game/series/series-of-series against a team of equivalent standard. Grace would make my top three cricketers of all time but often the question is phrased specifically relating to Test cricket, where he wasn't as strong relatively as many other openers.

The rest of the variance comes from exactly how the whole thing would theoretically work. Do you get each player at their absolute best? Or do you get them at a completely random point of their careers, meaning you're taking a punt of sorts? Or - my favourite way of looking at it - are you not only playing one series but in fact many series across a 15 or 20 year period, therefore taking into account all the highs and lows of a player's career and the longevity or lack thereof he demonstrated? The longer a period of performance we're taking into account, the more likely I am to pick someone like Tendulkar and the less likely I am to pick someone like Viv Richards.

 

[kyear2]

I prefer to think of picking players at their peak so my philosophy may be different.

My definite non negotiables though would be Bradman, Sobers, Gilchrist and Marshall. Hobbs, Warne, Tendulkar and Richards are all close for me as well but their selections are more subjective and they are other players which are comparable. Hutton deserves a mention here as well.
The four players I referenced stand out for me as just the very best at their respective positions and game changers.

 

[watson]

A players peak is not merely one match, one series, one season, or even one year. When a peak is determined ALL of the players Test career prior to the peak is taken into consideration ('number crunched'). In other other words, a peak is not an 'isolated incident'.

That being the case, I think that picking a player at his peak, even though he may have completed only half his career in hindsight, is the best and farest stance to take. Especially if the player has a lengthy career.

Exceptions will need to made with players like WG Grace, Barry Richards, and Mike Procter of course. Picking these players will always require a 'leap of faith' because they can only ever be selected according to their FC/WSC career and skill/talent.

And as for 'locking players in' - Bradman and Sobers are the only non-negotiables for me. Perhaps Marshall, but even he depends on the balance that I am trying to achieve with the attack according to the conditions.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

For me - Bradman, Sobers, Gilchrist and Hobbs are not up for negotiation. The rest of the answer changes a bit for me depending on exactly what the question is. Imran was IMO the best Test cricketer of all time but I don't think he was one the best four bowlers of all time so his place would somewhat come down to balance when it came to picking a side to play a game/series/series-of-series against a team of equivalent standard. Grace would make my top three cricketers of all time but often the question is phrased specifically relating to Test cricket, where he wasn't as strong relatively as many other openers.

The rest of the variance comes from exactly how the whole thing would theoretically work. Do you get each player at their absolute best? Or do you get them at a completely random point of their careers, meaning you're taking a punt of sorts? Or - my favourite way of looking at it - are you not only playing one series but in fact many series across a 15 or 20 year period, therefore taking into account all the highs and lows of a player's career and the longevity or lack thereof he demonstrated? The longer a period of performance we're taking into account, the more likely I am to pick someone like Tendulkar and the less likely I am to pick someone like Viv Richards.

I remember you saying this before, that you consider Imran the greatest Test cricketer. Why is that so? Seems a bit odd that anyone would consider him as the greatest.

 

[Coronis]

Non-negotiables for me are Bradman, Sobers, Gilchrist, Hobbs and Marshall.

 

[kyear2]

A players peak is not merely one match, one series, one season, or even one year. When a peak is determined ALL of the players Test career prior to the peak is taken into consideration ('number crunched'). In other other words, a peak is not an 'isolated incident'.

That being the case, I think that picking a player at his peak, even though he may have completed only half his career in hindsight, is the best and farest stance to take. Especially if the player has a lengthy career.

Exceptions will need to made with players like WG Grace, Barry Richards, and Mike Procter of course. Picking these players will always require a 'leap of faith' because they can only ever be selected according to their FC/WSC career and skill/talent.

And as for 'locking players in' - Bradman and Sobers are the only non-negotiables for me. Perhaps Marshall, but even he depends on the balance that I am trying to achieve with the attack according to the conditions.

Why would balance determine if Marshall is selected?

Genuinely interested.

 

[watson]

Non-negotiables for me are Bradman, Sobers, Gilchrist, Hobbs and Marshall.

Obviously anyone can have any non-negotiables they like because no one should be the thought police.

However, there is a principle which says, 'The best wicketkeeper should always be picked'. Because this principle is difficult to argue against it means that Gilchrist should not be an automatic pick. I'm not saying that Gilchrist wasn't an excellent keeper because he was. However, Kirmani, Knott, Evans, Tallon, and Oldfield receive universal acclaim for very good reasons. It is far more likely they are the best wicketkeepers.

It can be argued that Hutton and Gavaskar both faced significantly better attacks than what Hobbs did. Therefore the runs that they scored hold more value. I don't think that Hobbs is a non-negotiable either.

 

[Prince EWS]

However, there is a principle which says, 'The best wicketkeeper should always be picked'. Because this principle is difficult to argue against this

I find it extremely easy to argue against personally.

 

[watson]

I find it extremely easy to argue against personally.

OK. Money where your mouth is then.

 

[Prince EWS]

OK. Money where your mouth is then.

It's ideological rubbish. Picking any player for a cricket side is or at least should be about be maximising its chances of winning and/or minimising its chances of losing, and not satisfying ideological, sentimental or superstitious ideals.

To use an extreme hypothetical example, I'll give you a choice between two players for the role of wicket keeper in a side.

Player A is Chris Martin standard with the bat while Player B is only slightly worse than the worst specialist batsman playing in the side.

Both Player A and Player B are excellent wicket keepers standing up and standing back, and they're both equally adept at taking catches. Once every 5,000 deliveries, however, Player B lets through one more bye than Player A.

Player A is the best keeper, but there is no way in anyone's estimation that he'd actually be better for the side than Player B. The theory is dead in the water.

This doesn't prove that Knott or anyone else wouldn't necessarily add more to a team than Gilchrist, but what it does do is show that this:

'The best wicketkeeper should always be picked'

.. is a fatally flawed theory. No skill that a player offers should be completely ignored in selection as long as that skill actually applies to cricket and could be of theoretical use to the team on the field at any juncture. The selection of any player in any role is a balancing act, requiring you to consider everything they add and then prioritise each skill accordingly to the role they are selected in.

It's one thing to say that wicket keeping skills are undervalued by modern analysts but even if you believed wicket keeping to be significantly more important than batting when choosing the wicket keeper, batting would never be worth literally zero. You could make an argument for <1%, but not zero.

 

[kyear2]

Obviously anyone can have any non-negotiables they like because no one should be the thought police.

However, there is a principle which says, 'The best wicketkeeper should always be picked'. Because this principle is difficult to argue against it means that Gilchrist should not be an automatic pick. I'm not saying that Gilchrist wasn't an excellent keeper because he was. However, Kirmani, Knott, Evans, Tallon, and Oldfield receive universal acclaim for very good reasons. It is far more likely they are the best wicketkeepers.

It can be argued that Hutton and Gavaskar both faced significantly better attacks than what Hobbs did. Therefore the runs that they scored hold more value. I don't think that Hobbs is a non-negotiable either.

I agree with you regarding Hobbs, Gilchrist though is quite clearly the best wicket keeper batsman the world has seen and a quite under rated keeper as well.

 

[watson]

It's ideological rubbish. Picking any player for a cricket side is or at least should be about be maximising its chances of winning and/or minimising its chances of losing, and not satisfying ideological, sentimental or superstitious ideals............

Principles exist because smart people have first thought about an issue in depth. The fact that we don't understand their reasoning doesn't always mean that the original reasoning was illogical.

That being said, the main purpose of a 'supreme keeper' is to take catches and dismiss batsman that lesser keepers would not catch. This is very important when the opposing teams best batsman gives a 'half-chance' before he is set, or when the Test match is at a critical turning point. On both these occasions you would want your keeper to make that 'blinding' catch.

In short, if the likes of Don Bradman gives a sharp chance low down toward first slip when he's scored only 3 runs then it's very important to the bowling teams cause if the keeper makes the 'blinding catch' - rather miss it and allow the Don to bat on to score another double century.

Therefore, the impact of a keeper during a Test match is measured by;

1. Runs scored by the keeper.
2. Runs NOT scored by opposing batsman that would have otherwise been scored because of the keepers added ability in catching, stumping, and running-out opposing batsman.
3. Byes not conceded by the keeper.

People who chose Alan Knott over Gilchrist (for example) rightly or wrongly assume that it is more likely that the runs 'Scored + Prevented' by Knott will total more than the runs 'Scored + Prevented' by Gilchrist.

Admittedly, it's not an iron clad assumption but it's not an illogical one. Therefore, there is enough doubt to negate the claim that Gilchrist is a 'non-negotiable' for any ATG XI.

 

[Prince EWS]

People who chose Alan Knott over Gilchrist (for example) rightly or wrongly assume that the runs 'Scored + Prevented' by Knott will total more than the runs 'Scored + Prevented' by Gilchrist.

Admittedly, it's not an iron clad assumption but it's not an illogical one. Therefore, there is enough doubt to negate the claim that Gilchrist is a 'non-negotiable' for any ATG XI.

Yes but I wasn't arguing against that at all.

 

[watson]

Yes but I wasn't arguing against that at all.

Then we basically agree.

So why exactly is Gilchrist a 'non-negotiable' if keeping and batting skills are essentially a balancing act? Surely his batting skill is not so manifestly better that it can't be negated by a brilliant keeper who could also score centuries.

Gilchrist scored the bulk of his runs in the 2000s but Knott averaged 36 against Lillee and Thomo in 74/75, and 30 against Roberts and Holding in 76 (for example). This puts him ahead of most of the specialist batsman in his team during those series. Could Gilchrist done better against the attacks that Knott had to face? It's possible but by no means certain.

I just don't get why Gilchrist should be a 'lay down misere' when picking an ATG XI.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Don, Gilchrist and Sobers the only certs for me in that order

 

[Prince EWS]

Then we basically agree.

So why exactly is Gilchrist a 'non-negotiable' if keeping and batting skills are essentially a balancing act?

Oh, I just can't envisage a situation where I'd ever choose not to select him. I'm happy for people to disagree with that; it's just a simple clash of opinions. What I'm not happy for them to do is supply logical fallacies to support their argument.